The impact of a Canadian external Employee Assistance Program on mental health and workplace functioning: Findings from a prospective quasi-experimental study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this investigation, a quasi-experimental prospective evaluation employing a pretest–posttest control group design with propensity score matching estimated the causal impacts of a Canadian Employee Assistance Program (EAP) on mental health, workplace functioning, and life satisfaction. Participants (N = 304) were employees working at different organizations across Canada. EAP users had access to up to 12 counseling hours per year. Outcomes were compared between groups of EAP (n = 152) and non-EAP (n = 152) users matched on numerous baseline variables including demographic, occupational, mental health, workplace functioning, and other characteristics and measures. At 6 month follow-up, EAP users had significantly reduced psychological distress, including reduced symptoms of depression and anxiety compared to non-EAP users. EAP users also had significantly reduced work presenteeism and work distress, and increased work engagement. Finally, they reported greater life satisfaction at follow-up relative to non-EAP users. The largest effect sizes of EAP counseling were observed on mental health outcomes. Mediation analyses revealed that EAP treatment effects on workplace functioning were mediated by changes in (their positive impacts on) mental health. This is the first known quasi-experimental study conducted with an external EAP, with evidence supporting a causal link between use of a Canadian assistance program and a number of positive clinical and workplace outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it